0
   

preemptive attack on Iraq.

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 03:51 pm
trespassers will
Quote:

For them to claim--as they are now claiming--that they destroyed chemicals and other "ingredients" for WMD, but kept no records and have no evidence to show that they actually did so.


Records you want records. Hell anyone can generate records they don't mean a thing. I was involved in QA my entire working life and have seen records generated out of thin air any number of times. What happened for the last 10 years is water under the bridge. The UN asked to have it's inspectors allowed back into Iraq. And much to the chagrin of Bush, Saddam complied.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 04:03 pm
Makes me wonder why Saddam did not manufacture records. When I worked in the engineering department of an aircraft manufacturing facility, I became a whistle blower on several cases of the production department creating false records in order for something to pass QC. Two employees got the axe. It's rather like students cheating on an exam and I wouldn't put it passed Saddam to create the records that they were destroyed. Next step -- examine the how and where the weapons were destroyed.
Seems like a good idea on Saddam's part to have no records at all and I don't believe he's going to fake them and produce something now. Does all this remind anyone of the movie "Catch Me If You Can?" Depends on whether one believes the con game isn't going on on both sides.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 04:24 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Next step -- examine the how and where the weapons were destroyed


Some ire is piqued by Saddam's failure to provide any evidence beyond mere assetion that weapons and related facillities were destroyed or diverted to non-proscribed use. The stuff was there. It is not there now. It cannot be found. No proof of its destruction, disposition, or conversion has been offered. We are unable to determine where this stuff is, or what happened to it. Saddam refuses to answer those questions.


timber
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 04:43 pm
Timber
Suppose he says they were destroyed and I just did not bother to keep records. Can we prove that he did not and is lying? Of course not. That is precisely why the inspectors are there. Although there is very little chance that the inspectors will find hidden WMD'S,they will however negate the chance that further research and manufacture will occur. Inspectors should remain on the scene on a permanent basis.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 04:47 pm
Most records are subject to external verification. This, more than Saddam's inate honesty, is the likely reason for the absence of fabricated records.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 04:55 pm
roger got what I meant. timber -- even though I did doubt Saddam's honesty in producing records, he'd be sticking his neck out because the same kind of audit that produced the transgressors in the scenerio I used as an example would happen to him (except he wouldn't just get fired!) The other unlikely reason should be Saddam is withholding the records as a pie-in-the-face for Bush. In other words, let Bush gnash and grumble and then produce the records as a gigantic plate of crow. It would only work if the records were verified but what a PR coup for Saddam. The question is -- is he that smart?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:07 pm
The failure to produce independently verifiable documentation of the disposition of the contested items is the very point of breach. Iraq agreed to a requirement that she provide for and produce valid documentation. She fails to do so. Defiantly.



timber
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:10 pm
Hands up, who wants to see Iraq invaded and SH overthrown?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:12 pm
Roger
Quote:
Most records are subject to external verification.


By whom and how. I can assure you that if he had wanted to records could have been generated that could not be disputed. That is not conjecture on my part.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:15 pm
au, it's not your part that counts, it's Shrubs part - now that is scary because it isn't based in fact or logic!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:17 pm
Not that mean, Bib. Would be happy to see the nonexistant weapons and the means of their future means of production destroyed. Oh, with real verification.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:19 pm
roger, make the "real, continuous verification"
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:20 pm
I would love to see Saddam taken out, not in this way and certainly without the use of nukes!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:22 pm
The idea of nukes on that battlefield is insanity. If the threat of nukes dissuades Iraq from using chemical weapons, fine and dandy.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:23 pm
What sort of Democracy would be put in place when SH is overthrown?
American or British?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:24 pm
I believe that military action against Iraq will be necessary. I don't believe that the Republican Guard will be any more effective now than they were in the Gulf War. I believe that when the United States is ready to go to end-game, that most of our allies will jump on board the bandwagon. Once fighting begins, don't be surprised if Syria doesn't grab off a nice chunk of Northwestern Iraq. I do not believe that it is necessary to engage in house-to-house fighting within Iraq's urban centers to achieve victory. I do believe that Saddam will be eliminated, though he may well opt for Gotterdamerung. That would be most unfortumate for the Iraqi People. I don't believe we would retaliate with nuclear weapons, but the destructiveness and lethality of our "conventional" weapons is far greater than most would believe possible.

Nation building is an important element in a post-Saddam Iraq. Don't expect the military to do it. If it were up to me, I would mount the troops up afterward and move them to Pacific bases, and the Korean peninsula. The shrub doesn't listen to me, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:24 pm
Neither BIb, military, totalitarian rule!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:35 pm
Do you not think that Iraq, post Saddam, will just be another Afghanistan?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:37 pm
No, Iraq has oil, a lot of oil. They will not be left to their own destiny. That military rule is US. Britian if they help, spoils of war - you know, old chap!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:40 pm
What about Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, saudi Arabia and Kuwait - do you not think that some of them may want a piece of the Iraqi wealth?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 09:23:16